↓ Skip to main content

A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A randomised controlled trial comparing opt-in and opt-out home visits for tracing lost participants in a prospective birth cohort study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0041-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabelle Bray, Sian Noble, Andy Boyd, Lindsey Brown, Pei Hayes, Joanne Malcolm, Ross Robinson, Rachel Williams, Kirsty Burston, John Macleod, Lynn Molloy, Kate Tilling

Abstract

Attrition is an important problem in cohort studies. Tracing cohort members who have moved or otherwise lost contact with the study is vital. There is some debate about the acceptability and relative effectiveness of opt-in versus opt-out methods of contacting cohort members to re-engage them in this context. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the two approaches in terms of effectiveness (tracing to confirm address and consenting to continue in the study), cost-effectiveness and acceptability. Participants in this trial were individuals (young people and mothers) recruited to the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), who had not engaged with the study in the previous 5 years and for whom mail had been returned from their last known address. The sampling frame was restricted to those for whom database searching led to a potential new address being found in the Bristol area. 300 participants were randomly selected and assigned using stratified randomisation to the opt-in or opt-out arm. A tailored letter was sent to the potential new address, either asking participants to opt in to a home visit, or giving them the option to opt out of a home visit. Fieldworkers from Ipsos MORI conducted home visits to confirm address details. The proportion who were traced was higher in the opt-out arm (77/150 = 51 %) than the opt-in arm (6/150 = 4 %), as was the proportion who consented to continue in ALSPAC (46/150 = 31 % v 4/150 = 3 %). The mean cost per participant was £8.14 in the opt-in arm and £71.93 in the opt-out arm. There was no evidence of a difference in acceptability between the opt-in and opt-out approaches. Since the opt-in approach yielded very low response rates, and there were no differences in terms of acceptability, we conclude that the opt-out approach is the most effective method of tracing disengaged study members. The gains made in contacting participants must be weighed against the increase in cost using this methodology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Pakistan 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 20%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Psychology 2 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,344,095
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,507
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,893
of 263,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.